In my last post on the mysterious beryllium-8, I presented a sort of plausible idea for its structure, but concluded that I might be wrong and that I would have to follow the logic further to see where it takes make. Whether the logic is sound, or whether something new opens up.
For the past week I’ve been toying with how the proposed model would be extended to carbon, the molecule of life and how the atomic bond relates to the chemical bond.
First of all, I soon realized that I have to introduce the direction of the movement of the dots (Planck spheres) to the deuterium orbital models, as just the shape doesn’t reveal whether two sides of an orbital can fuse. The direction of movement must be identical as well. Then, as a graphical note, I realized I had been using an older image of the deuterium orbital, where the color coding was illogical. After that, I switched to an orbital model, where the loops are more logically color coded, with either a red-blue or a yellow-orange color pair for top-down arcs.
With that out of the way, I began to reconsider the model of beryllium-8, not from the most fundamental concept of neighboring loops fusing, but from the conversion of the one-dimensional (linear) fusing of deuteriums into helium into a two-dimensional fusing of the helium atoms into a beryllium-8 atom. The major reason for this weren’t initially the properties of beryllium-8, as there is so little data on it, but on the properties of carbon-12, if the logic is followed. It’s quite hard to explain comprehensively, but the main problem arose from the geometrical location of the electrons (located at the crossing points of the orange and blue arcs). Both the shape of the atom and the angle of the chemical bonds associated with the shape just appeared ‘off’. It’s rather hard to explain ‘off’ in what way without going too deep into details, so I’ll just skip that bit.
However, if the main concept of fusion is still valid, but you don’t have a two-dimensional structure, as two helium atoms fuse, then what is the shape at the initial state of fusion? The almost comically simple answer is: fusion is a linear process. What this means in practice for the beryllium-8 atom, is that it looks more or less like this:
You might notice the half-spheres on the left and right of the image. My current hunch is that in the fusion of beryllium-8 the first step is the linear fusion of two linearly aligned atoms and the final step is the coiling of the fused intermediate stage and the fusion of the edges. However, the final step is still a hunch and only time will tell whether it conforms to the true properties of atoms or not.
The next question is whether this influence my interpretation of the electron? I won’t go too deep into the details again, but it seems that the electron doesn’t look like a spherical a hydrogen orbital, but rather a spherical deuterium orbital. The reason for this is rather obvious: if an electron is located at the crossing points of the orange and blue arcs, the shape of the electron must mirror the shape of the deuterium orbital and not that of the hydrogen orbital.
If the fusion of atoms begins with this linear state, what does this mean for the final, non-linear, shape of the atom? The short answer is that I don’t know yet, but it seems to involve the rearrangement of the loops in such a way that the linear structure begins to more closely resemble the conventional model of the atomic nucleus (below).
The two significant exceptions to the above model are that (a) the spheres aren’t really spheres, but the spherical orbitals with the strings moving at the speed of light on a spherical surface and (b) where the protons and neutrons aren’t really separated like this: rather there are as many deuterium orbitals as there are protons, and the number of separate neutron orbital is the number of neutrons minus the number of deuterium orbitals (i.e. identical to the number of protons).
The million dollar question then is, how does this model explain the chemical properties found on the periodic table and the electron shells? This remains to be seen. A curious side remark is that the first subshell of just two electrons isn’t really as independent as it first seems. I.e. in principle, if the atoms aren’t too large to block the deuterium spheres in the core of the atom, it appears that the inner deuteriums can partake in bonding as well, as we see from the crystal structure of n-butylliuthium. Hydrogen (in white), with one proton (and no neutron, unless the bond is with deuterium) bond with one bond, lithium (in purple), with three protons has three bonds and carbon (in gray) with six protons has six bonds, at least the ones that bond to lithium. While this kind of a crystal structure is an exception rather than the rule, perhaps it still shows that if the conditions are right, at least smaller atoms can be made to bond with all of its protons (or more specifically with all of its deuteriums, if not counting the exception of hydrogen).
As a very last remark, I’m going to contradict a lot of what I’ve said prior to this and suggest that the hydrogen orbital, when connected to a molecule might actually look different to what it does when connected to its own supramolecular orbital. Or more specifically, I’m tempted to consider that hydrogen, when connected to a molecule, looks like the deuterium orbital, but just half of the loops removed. But then, in the supramolecular orbital of hydrogen, the orbital really looks the original orbital that I solved/drew for the counterevidence paper.
But as always, I’ll have to conclude with the caveat that this is still a work in progress and even major errors can be present. If the experimental evidence doesn’t back the theory, the theory must go.
Comments